It seems flying a “rainbow flag” for months does not make Eaton inclusive, just a harborage for ES&G management types intent on being as superficial and creepily offensive to orthodox believers as possible.
A properly functioning union there might say something on behalf of their members who find the implications of going to work under such a flag offensive such that doing so might infer agreement with the political movement claiming the flag. That is not something to be proud of.
Such a union might grieve that differences in opinion from workers are stifled while corporate management blatantly foists theirs.
As we suggest below, Eaton’s symbolization is selective, argumentative, and not tolerant of cultural diversity. (more commentary follows the pictoral depictions of Eaton’s flag hypocrisy).
Do any Muslims work for Eaton? How do they or would they feel about going to work each day for a company so insensitive, so in your face as you enter the company’s front office portico that champions not merely a focused culturally unsettled cause in all its manifestations, but a celebration of a sexual license their religious teachings find abhorrent? One that for example insists on “drag story hour” for children promoted in local publicly funded institutions where you see the same flag.
The “rainbow flag” is the recognized in-your-face symbol of not merely “gay” tolerance, the flag of the United States and its laws represents that, but a political movement. We will consider any rebuttals or demurrals from the company as regards that point as authentic when they hoist for example, some of the following flags as prominently and for the same extended periods of time.
Here are some flags that represent a cause or “constituencies” that many of their employees may well hold dear. When do these flags and movements get their weeks in the sun at Eaton?
The above selections are just a sampling of the flags of a variety of causes or viewpoints some of which are certainly less controversial than the gay “rights” rainbow flag. Eaton does not bother with flying those flags. But understand well, we agree and support that a company is not obligated to.
But by prominently displaying a rainbow flag, with its loaded symbolization, and not providing a similar or alternative venue for a competing viewpoint is discrimination. Private employers are allowed to do that. We do not object overall to that right but we do believe Eaton shows lack of judgement and evenhandedness because getting involved in the political culture wars forces at least some workers to cringe and even consider the company hostile to their religious beliefs. We freely admit to our own prejudices that we would applaud companies supportive of traditional values along the lines of some of the “flags” and movements identified above.
All that said, perhaps there are some elements of this ES&G crapola that might be actionable by employees. Consider:
In order to hold their jobs at Eaton it requires some employees to deal with the pall cast over them of a noxious philosophy at odds with their religious upbringing. Flying such a flag is a culturally provocative political statement because of its recognized associations and manifestations in public policy which an employee may find anathema.
Are Eaton employees allowed an accommodation to compensate for the sacriligious insult dealt them embodied in such a flag and political movement? If the flag is considered merely passive are employees allowed the ability to “passively” disagree on sight by showing their religious views either on another flagpole equally prominent or to wear a garment, hat, or pin showing their disagreement with the rainbow propaganda?
As far as we know they are not. Speaking up about such things is rare and is what management counts on while preening for kudos from the left. Plus they are protected in their speech and employees are not.
Evenhandedness in the flag propaganda are not accommodated as far as we can tell in passing by their facility. Eaton appears to be rigid and non-accommodating to alternative religious and philosophical beliefs based on the history of its flag policy.
Perhaps these “safe” workplace environments “under the rainbow” claimed by ESG reprobates are for example only for transgenders and not straight women who are uncomfortable and understandably might not feel safe with a biological man in the bathroom. Castigating the fear does not overwhelm the cultural fact. Now if all bathrooms at Eaton are single use facilities with a lock and no gang dressing areas then that criticism is abated but not the issue of propagandizing employees (the rainbow flag).
To turn the supposed justification coin on Eaton: in spite of their pretense the Eaton propagandistic flag policies reflecting the religion of secularization can cause people to hide their true selves less they be ostracized in various ways by management. Certainly for many the fear of speaking up pertains. It seems that with such companies a man who believes he is a woman is free to flaunt his feelings and demonstrate through garb those feelings, which Eaton management will ignore or accommodate, but orthodox Christian or Muslim views to the contrary in this country they will not.
Again management is free to impose its blatant or subtle anti-religious propaganda on campus, and as corporate policy, to deny such speech to others on campus, cultural denigration be damned. And in all this it should be well understood that we are not advocating discrimination in hiring or firing, only the propagandizing without recourse of cultural matters that companies should leave to the political process lest they be politicized and reap that whirlwind. We think it stupid for companies to get on the ESG bandwagon often against interests and join the culture wars (witness Bud Light).
Eaton management is not brave. If any virtue entered into it they would be more interested in being even-handed and not propagandize against or limit passive orthodox Christian expression as they do. But by the standards they pretend to exhibit here they are cowards elsewhere. Try hoisting that flag outside their property and plants in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Kenya, China. Here they get to attend fine cocktail parties and extol their participation in an agenda of cultural denigration, in Muslim world they would likely have it torn down as an offense and be the scene of protests.
There is more than enough expression of tolerance in the colors of the flag of the United States.
So while we recognize the limited legal right for the company to engage in propagandizing we mostly object to the arbitrary ESG assholes fighting the culture wars on behalf of the left.
So the question arises whutareyagunnadoaboutit.
You mean besides vent?
We would suggest do what the left would do. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”* In doing that consult a labor law attorney and check on the extent of the protected right in the workplace to organize union and non-union members as to labor and workplace conditions which might include wearing organizing paraphernalia.
For example perhaps a labor organizing pin or perhaps t-shirt focused on ending a certain workplace condition. We believe the pin is “allowed” under the law to at least obliquely send a message beyond the particular objection. Check with a labor law attorney but advocacy of a work policy accommodation would seem to be a protected right under labor law. An example might be a pin that encourages adoption of a workplace accommodation right by the company and or union or an end to objectionable practices by either.
We believe such paraphernalia can contain a message or refer people to a fuller understanding of the arguments along with the call for even-handed treatment. An action item such as inviting them to sign a petition to management and or the union is a labor organizing feature regarding workplace policies and issues.
Check on the parameters but it seems to us the legal protection of advocacy regarding a work-place condition does not require official union acceptance or that the messaging come from a union member. Indeed in this case a union could be a part of the problem given their notorious encompassing of all things Democrat Party.
It is our understanding that a pin with a union label or indicia that also has a candidate image or logo is protected. So politics is not an excuse for forbidding such advocacy. Associate the protest in terms of and aligned with workers rights. The official union does not have to endorse or agree. It may well be that neither management or the union can stop such advocacy. Assuming that right, if any intimidation or retaliation ensues then sue them.
The idea may take years to settle into something workable but in the meantime orthodox believers can make their point, demonstrate resistance to management or union nostrums, and evangelize the reasoning. Ideally a union should embrace the matter but don’t hold your breath.
These pins and an accompanying organizational effort are mockups that might apply to a company that makes it a point to prominently fly a rainbow flag while denying workers the right to prominently symbolize their own belief. Other possibilities — better phraseology, designs, etc. no doubt abound.